San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1887-07-19
THE TWO MS.

Messmer and Moore delight the Anti
Prohibitlonists with Good Speeches.
The anII-prohibitiOnists held a very
pleasant meeting upon the lot on HOus-
Ton street that was formerly occupied
DIV Degner's lumber yard. About 1000
people were present and a more intelli-
gent and orderly audience never as
sembled in any part OF he world.
On the lot has been erected n very
handsome speakers stand, which, it Is
said, has been donated by those enter
terprising lumbermen Alderman Deg
ner and Mr.. Micklejohn. This stand
has been ornamented with United
States "hagging" and banners OF vari-
GUS nationalities adOrn it. The gas
company have literally fitted the gas to
the stand, supplying the gas free OF
charge. Above the stand was an tllum-
mated jet which showed In all it's fiery
beauty the appropriate legand Texas
and Freedom" The Fashion band
was there and aged an apprO-
PIRATE selection OF music to
attract the crowd and enter
tain it prior to the opening OF the
meeting, but this was obtained solely
through the liberallty of Mr.. Max Sam
uels. Chairman SChrRmm having applied
to the executive committee for funds TO
get band, but was denied on the
ground that there were no funds. (By
the way, where's the $500 collected at
the last meeting, and what has been
done with it? The newspapers haven't
got it,
The meeting opened by Chairman
Schramm introducing Mr.. W. S. Mess
mer. That gentleman explained that at
late hour in the afternoon he had been
called upon TO fill a gap, and ne had no
apology to offer for being present, but
he was sorry that the cause had so feeble
an exponent. There were mighty IS
sues at stake. and it was Il mistake to
suppose that passion and prejudice
should decide momentOus Issues that
would be felt in Texas for the next 20
years. No one who understood Ameri-
can Institutions, or appre Giated liberty,
or understood where individual re-
sponsibility ended, or the the RESPONSE
bility of society began, would believe
that if prohibition carried it
would be maintained, and they
knew that what was done would
in time have to be undOne and they
would have to go over the old track
again. He had nothing to say on the
moral and scripture argument; Chris
tisnity that had been at variance for
nineteen centuries wasn't going to unite
upon this question. Render under
Caesar the things that are Caesars and
render under God that things that are
Gods" God would take care OF his
own. He ably argued upon the consti-
tiOn of society, showing that while men
had surrendered certain personal rights
for the general good, the right of eating
and drinking what they pleased and
managing his own had never been sur
rendered. There was no parallel in the
prohibition placed upon theft, murder
and other crimes. because these things
were done without consent OF the III
jured party, but when man sold or
bought liquor there was mutual consent.
Men had an individual right to control
his personal habits, q right never sur
rendered in any part of the world save
in four states of the Union. Ii the PEG.
pie we're free why not give them the
same privilege? Society bad nothing to
do with the money man earned or his
method Of spending. A man may make
fool ofhimself, but there is no law against
otherwise prOhibitiOnists would never
have been heard of. He commended that
the laws existing were sufficient for So
ciety's protection II they were only en-
forced There were evila and poverty in
the traffic Is True, bat if q man got
dyspepsia whose fault WAS it. the
butcher or the appetite? Grover Cleye-
land got the cole ifun eating water
melons. Shall We" he asked, "Cut
down on wnteT melons for that TeasOn?"
daughter J There was big difference
between the use and abuse OF the good
things OF the world. He showed that
the prohibition amendment, if carried,
would go into effect Immediately on the
declaration of the vote, and that in the
interim bet wPen that and the meeting
OF the legislature. the drink traffic must
be unlicensed and uncontrolled, for the
amendment abrOgated al laws opposed
to il, and then if he coming Legislature
should he nti-prUhibitiOnists, they
might refuse TO make laws regulating
the business, and thus the boy would be
the creator of his own father (Laugh
ter In conclusion he dealt with John
L Martins letter, showing the evils of
prohibition and its enforcement in pro-
hibitiOn states, the difficulties of entOrc-
ing the law so opposed to public senti-
ment and urged personal control as TO
the only true remedies for the
evils that prohibition sought to re-
form in a wrong way. MIR. Messmer
spoke for forty minutes and resumed his
seat amid loud cheering.
The Hon. l.. W. Moore, Of La Grange,
followed in lengthy speecH,in which he
oombatted the arguments u prohibition
lists and refuted them. He was especial
ly strong and forcible on the scripture
argument" and hoisted the pros" upon
their own petards. Speaking of Maine,
he showed distinctly that its population
had not increased like that Of Texas, its
taxes were twice as high, ard It's paupeT
list was much greater, and this after
Maine had enjoyed the benefits of prOhi-
bition for thirty years.
Mac Anderson. who occupied seat on
the platform, wac loudly called for, but
as the hour was late he simply acknOwl-
edged the compliment and retired. The
meeting then came to an end.